Case 4113344/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal Members: Mr R McPherson and Mr A McMillan Mr D S Heenan v Innseagan House Hotel Limited t/a Innseagan — 2019
- Case reference
- 4113344/2018
- Decision date
- 3 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shona MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr R McPherson, Mr A McMillan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tribunal Members: Mr R McPherson and Mr A McMillan Mr D S Heenan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn the evidence, the claimant started work at the Innseagan on 18 July 2018. The tribunal found that wages were paid inconsistently, that the claimant expected payment on 30 July 2018 and again on 6 August 2018, and that he raised concerns by email on 8 August 2018 about late payment, missing hours, a payslip and a contract. It also found that on 4 August 2018 Mr Sparkes said, "What do you want? Dick or arse?" in the kitchen, which the claimant found embarrassing and awkward.
The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed on 14 August 2018. It found that he had been allowed to leave work on 13 August 2018 to sort out his finances, intended to return if paid, and did not clearly resign. The automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the tribunal found the dismissal was not because he had complained about unpaid wages or because he had raised a grievance about the remark; rather, Mr Smith acted on the mistaken view that the claimant had walked out and had resigned.
The unlawful deduction claim failed because the tribunal did not accept the claimant's hours record as reliable. The notice-pay claim also failed: the tribunal found that he had been employed for less than four weeks, so he was not entitled to statutory notice or a payment in lieu, and no contractual notice entitlement was proved.
The harassment complaint succeeded under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the comment was unwanted conduct related to sexual orientation, was made in public in front of colleagues, had the effect of humiliating the claimant, and it was reasonable for it to have that effect. It further found that the respondent had not taken all reasonable steps to prevent harassment, noting the lack of evidence of training or an effective handbook system. The tribunal awarded £800 for injury to feelings and £41.73 interest at 8% from 4 August 2018 to 1 April 2019; no recommendation was sought.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.104 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 14 August 2018, but not because he complained about unpaid wages or because he had raised a grievance about the comment made by Mr Sparkes; the respondent acted on the mistaken view that he had resigned. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice-pay claim. The tribunal held the claimant had been employed for less than four weeks, so he was not entitled to statutory notice or a payment in lieu, and no contractual notice entitlement was proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal did not accept the claimant's record of hours as accurate and reliable, so it was not satisfied that any unlawful deduction claim was well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found Mr Sparkes made an unwanted comment related to sexual orientation on 4 August 2018, that it had the effect of humiliating the claimant, and that it was reasonable for it to have that effect. The tribunal awarded £800 for injury to feelings and separate interest. | Upheld | Sexual orientation | £800 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £842
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.39(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.124 Equality Act 2010
- Armitage & Others v Johnson
- Vento guidelines
- Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.